Protect your global reputation: work with NGOs – the new super brands

Citation

Edelman, R. (2001), "Protect your global reputation: work with NGOs – the new super brands", Strategy & Leadership, Vol. 29 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/sl.2001.26129bab.001

Protect your global reputation: work with NGOs – the new super brands

Protect your global reputation: work with NGOs – the new super brands

Richard Edelman

Even before the first rock was thrown at the "Battle of Seattle" more than a year ago during the tumultuous meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO), multinational corporations have felt the effects of the growing power and influence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on their businesses. Multinationals such as Nike, Shell, and other well-respected global brands have found themselves the subject of intense scrutiny and criticism by NGOs, which have the power to damage their reputation in the market. Others, such as Monsanto, have found that the traditional model of persuasion – the pyramid of influence that focuses on opinion leaders – has given way to a circle of cross-influence involving multiple stakeholders. They have found that consumers must be kept apprised throughout the approval process.

Business and government leaders must recognize that NGOs are here to stay as important players in the global marketplace. Given the European public's increasing distrust of government because of Mad Cow Disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) and skepticism of corporate motives (of which the Bridgestone/Firestone crisis is representative) corporate leaders must also recognize that NGOs will play a critical role in global governance and are a key stakeholder in their businesses. While most government and corporate leaders are aware of NGOs' increasing global sway over the general public, few realize just how influential groups such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, or the World Wildlife Fund have become. In fact, we believe NGOs are the new super brands, with real power to act on behalf of a perceived common good.

That influence over world opinion is now documented in a survey done one year after the Seattle WTO meeting by Strategy One, a public-opinion research and consulting unit of Edelman Public Relations Worldwide. The survey, commissioned in response to the first anniversary of the Seattle meeting, is one of the most comprehensive examinations of opinion leader attitudes toward NGOs. Over 1,100 well-educated, media-attentive individuals between the ages of 34 and 64 from five industrialized countries (USA, UK, France, Germany, and Australia) were interviewed (see sidebar, "Research highlights by country").

Key findings of the study include:

• •

  In most markets, NGOs are trusted nearly twice as much to "do what is right" compared to government, media, or corporations. Nearly two-thirds of respondents say that corporations only care about profits, while well over half say that NGOs "represent values I believe in."

• •

  NGOs ranked significantly higher as a source of credible information than media outlets or companies on issues including labor and human rights, genetically modified food, and environmental and health issues.

• •

  In times of a corporate crisis, like the Bridgestone/Firestone situation, at least twice as many respondents turn to NGOs for information as turn to the media or corporations.

• •

  Of those surveyed 64 percent say NGO influence has increased significantly over the past decade.

• •

  NGOs such as Amnesty International, Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund have greater credibility than such corporations as Esso/Exxon, Ford, Microsoft, and Nike, except in the USA, where major corporate brands (like Microsoft and Nike) edge out NGO brands in trust and favorability (see Figure 1). This is largely due to the fact that the USA is more conservative, coupled with the recent unprecedented economic expansion and more credible government agencies such as the EPA and FDA.

• •

  Over half of respondents say corporations are "arrogant," and nearly two-thirds say corporations "only care about profits."

• •

  Over half of respondents say NGOs are "ethical" and say NGOs "represent values I believe in."

• •

  Over 75 percent of the public perceives NGOs as influential in shaping attitudes and behaviors of governments and large corporations today.

Figure 1 Percent of favourable views

The survey also found that NGOs have a greater level of trust than government and companies because they are more effective at using the power of images, particularly in broadcast media and on the Internet. They speak directly to consumers, appealing to emotions through simple and concise themes. Low trust and confidence in government and business give NGOs credibility – they have the "halo" effect and are seen as being motivated by morals rather than just profit. In effect, NGOs are perceived as selfless crusaders with specific expertise.

Top-tier NGOs are being given much more media visibility – the quantity of NGO coverage has quadrupled in the past four years. Specific NGOs have mindshare with the media. For example, Greenpeace "owns" the environment, and Amnesty International "owns" labor/work issues.

NGOs are winning the trust battle because:

• •

  They play offense all the time.

• •

  They skip elite media and take their messages straight to consumers through the Web, popular press, and TV.

• •

  They are ingenious at building coalitions.

• •

  They always have a clear agenda.

• •

  They move at Internet speed.

• •

  They speak in the media's "tone."

If Seattle was a wake up call, then the survey's findings can be considered a smoke alarm, requiring decisive action. It is our recommendation that a company proactively manage relationships with NGOs to protect its corporate global reputation. No longer can corporations risk merely meeting minimal standards. Instead, corporate leaders must learn more about NGO concerns and begin dialogues with them to implement programs, strategies, and tactics designed to avert confrontational situations before they become major news stories.

Research highlights by country The survey was conducted recently in the USA, UK, Australia, France, and Germany. A statistically significant sample of thought-leaders in each country were queried on their attitudes about and reliance on information from NGOs. USA • 70 percent of respondents are positive about the role NGOs play in shaping a better world. • 90 percent say that NGOs play an important role in shaping attitudes and behaviors of governments and corporations. • Americans are somewhat less aware and less familiar with NGOs than Europeans and Australians. (Correspondingly, perceptions of NGO favorability and trust are somewhat lower as well.) • Business is rated most favorably in the USA – significantly more than NGOs, government, or media. • Americans are more measured. They perceive name NGOs like Greenpeace and Amnesty International less favorably than other NGOs (World Wildlife Fund, Sierra Club) and as positively as some corporations (Nike, Ford). Internationally, there is overwhelming evidence that best known NGOs (Greenpeace and Amnesty International) are perceived to be more favorable and trustworthy than any corporation. • Americans also trust Microsoft, Ford and Nike "to do what is right" more than the leading NGOs like Greenpeace and Amnesty International. • Americans view "controversial" companies such as Exxon and Monsanto much more favorably than Europeans and Australians. UK • The World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace had higher favorability opinion rating (65 percent and 50 percent respectively) than Exxon/Esso and British Telecom (13 percent and 33 percent respectively). Local government did not do much better, scoring a 21 percent favorability opinion rating. • NGOs are viewed six and half times more credibly than companies and nearly twice as credible as the media when it comes to genetically modified foods. Germany • Greenpeace and Amnesty International had higher favorability opinion ratings (59 percent and 72 percent respectively) than Deutsche Telecom and the Ford Motor Company (30 percent and 22 percent respectively). Local government received a 38 percent favorability opinion rating. • More than half of respondents said they were very or extremely familiar with NGOs – the highest level of any country surveyed. France • World Wildlife Fund and Amnesty International had higher favorability opinion ratings (60 percent and 73 percent respectively) than Air France and Microsoft (37 percent and 34 percent respectively). Local government received a 17 percent favorability opinion rating. • NGOs are viewed five and half times more favorably than business, nine times more so than the media, and three times more than government. France is the mirror image of the USA, with great respect for NGOs and low regard for business. Australia • Sierra Club and Greenpeace had higher favorability opinion ratings (54 percent and 57 percent respectively) than Telstra and Microsoft (30 percent and 39 percent respectively). Local government received a 22 percent favorability opinion rating. • Thirteen times as many respondents turn to NGOs for information on the environment and 22 times as many turn to NGOs for human rights issues than turn to corporations.

How to prepare

Edelman PR Worldwide has had experience in working with several multinational corporations in helping them to manage their relationships with some of the best-known NGOs. We recommend the following steps:

• •

  Identify. It is vital that organizations work to identify the NGOs and issues that might intersect with their business agendas. Upfront knowledge is the key to avoiding being sidelined by an unanticipated attack.

• •

  Educate early. Work to educate NGO leadership about initiatives in advance. We believe there are three categories of NGOs: (1) virulently opposed, (2) prickly, but approachable, and (3) moderate. We feel corporations should engage NGOs in categories 2 and 3.

• •

  Develop specific programs. Two good examples are Home Depot's work with the Forest Stewardship Council and Chiquita's work with the Rainforest Alliance. There are multiple elements in these programs, including brand certification, adaptation of production techniques, and outreach employees.

• •

  Focus on the public. Use your Web site, public declarations, and branding to address the ramifications of all business initiatives on the public.

• •

  Be consistent. In today's fast-moving, around-the-clock communications environment, corporations or their representatives cannot contradict themselves on the issues in different geographic markets, or over time, without raising doubts in the minds of NGOs and the public.

How to counterattack

Sometimes a multinational corporation finds itself under sudden attack by an NGO with an unreasonable set of demands. When the company decides to fight back, the following guidelines are critical:

• •

  Remember that offense beats defense.

• •

  Develop point, counterpoint.

• •

  Challenge the opponent's premise.

• •

  Enlist credible third parties.

• •

  Think consumer, not elite.

• •

  Reach out to moderate NGOs.

It is vital to communicate in simple, understandable terms. Spokespeople must be grounded in fact-based science, yet be warm enough to convey compassion in broadcast. Web reporters and chat rooms should be used for direct contact with the public.

Business has been on the defensive in the globalization debate. Companies have chosen to keep their heads down rather than participate in public forums. To preserve the gains made in a global economic framework, businesses must change to incorporate a social and environmental context – the vaunted triple bottom line. Business leaders must find ways of working with NGOs, who are the trusted arbiters of what is socially and environmentally responsible. They must also adapt their methods of communication to incorporate the Web and popular media. In short, business leaders must go beyond their "comfort zone" and find ways to operate in the "smart zone."